Often, people who run academia are concerned that their methods of evaluation of human intelligence might not be as accurate as they need to be.
If a student is lazy, and doesn’t do any work, and so achieves low marks, is it fair to say that student is not very intelligent? Probably not, but it’s what people do.
So, there must be some biological basis for intelligence that could be used to rate the intelligence of a person.
Try browsing this paper on dendrite structure. In my thinking, I hypothesize intelligence could be measured by 3 things:
1 – speed at which they learn [physically: formation of neural connections]
2 – amount of information they can retain after learning [how intact the biology stays]
3 – speed of recall information previously learned (“replay”) [space between dendrites, quality of white or gray matter between dendrites]
But here’s the thing. Learning snowballs. If you understand how to do addition already, learning to do subtraction will be learned much faster than if you didn’t already understand addition to begin with.
Learning is only possible, however, if you are paying attention and understand what is being said. Biologically, this should be measured by the speed of formation of new synapses or connections in the brain.
A good class is “fun” and easy to learn/remember because it puts the brain in an entertained state which makes learning easier because the brain is more active in that state, so more neural connections can physically be formed.
Even a good movie is easy to remember (usually) because it puts the brain in an excited state, which makes information storage in the brain more likely to stick.